cancer

Parents Battle School’s Cell Tower After 4th Student Cancer Diagnosis

Because the cell carrier pays the school district $2,000 per month for site rental, the district will not budge on parents’ complaints that radiation is causing cancer at an alarming rate. One cancer specialist said that the type of cancer is caused strictly by environmental factors. ⁃ TN Editor

A fourth child has been diagnosed with cancer at a San Joaquin County elementary school, and parents believe it’s because of radiation caused by a cell phone tower.

The towers are spread throughout the community, but it’s this particular one that parents say needs to go.

“We had a doctor tell us that it’s 100 percent environmental, the kind of tumor that he has,” said Monica Ferrulli.

Her son Mason was the second child to be diagnosed with cancer in just three years at Weston Elementary. He was 10-years-old and walked by this cell phone tower daily.

“It’s indescribable, it’s really tough,” she said.

“It’s one of the hardest things that I’ve been through,” said Joe Prime.

Prime’s son Kyle was the first, diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2016. And two more kids were diagnosed this year.

“It just seems like coincidence is no longer a reason for all this illness,” Prime said.

They believe it’s this cell phone tower that’s harming their kids.

“Kids shouldn’t be guinea pigs and we shouldn’t be taking chances with the children’s lives,” Prime said.

Read full story here…




bluetooth

250 Scientists Sign Petition Against Danger Of Cancer From Bluetooth Radiation

Cell phones, 5G and Wifi are already known to be cancer risks, but now low-power bluetooth devices, like AirPods and earbuds, may also be dangerous. Most of these devices are not regulated but are regularly worn by tens of millions of users. ⁃ TN Editor

Apple’s popular wireless AirPods headphones may pose cancer risks to wearers, according to a United Nations and World Health Organization petition.

Some 250 have signed the petition, which warns against numerous devices that emit radio frequency radiation, which is used in WiFi, cellular data and Bluetooth.

AirPods in particular are concerning because they sit deeply enough within the ear canal to emit expose these fragile parts of the ear to dangerous among of radiation, some experts warn.

The scientific jury is still out on the whether or not the particular devices can cause cancer, but animal studies on the kind of radio frequency radiation that they emit has suggested a link to cancer.

Radio waves from Bluetooth AirPods may be carcinogenic, a group of 250 international scientists warned in a petition against minimally regulated wireless technology

And, in some cases, the levels of radiation found to be carcinogenic were significantly lower than the maximum allowed by federal and international guidelines.

Last year, Apple sold 28 million pairs of its tiny, white wireless earbuds. The year before, they sold 16 million pairs. With a new design reportedly on the way, the technology company is set to profit even more on sound.

But the devices could be pumping more than beats into wearers’ heads.

The AirPods wirelessly connect with a phone via Bluetooth, the popular short distance radio communication technology.

Essentially, anything that communicates wirelessly using electromagnetic energy waves of varying types.

Bluetooth operates on one form involving low-power radio waves.

The most obvious and well-established risk of radio waves is that, at high levels, they can generate heat and cause burns. Scientists are still working out the effects of long-term exposure to lower-power radio waves.

When they have exposed animals to this form of radiation, reproductive, neurological and genetic damage has become more common in those animals than would be expected in a normal sample of the same animals.

These forms of energy are powerful enough to shake up atoms that compose cells but not powerful enough to fundamentally change their structures.

This means that radio waves are less dangerous than higher energy radiation like X-rays or UV, but more extremely low-frequency radiation.

Last year, further evidence that cellular transmissions may indeed cause certain kinds of cancer was published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Now, scientists calling for more oversight and warnings for all manner of radiowave-based technologies are particularly concerned over the intensity and proximity of Bluetooth radiation to the human ear canal and brain.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has declared electromagenetic field radiation a possible carcinogen.

WiFi, too, has been shown to pose cancer risks.

Read full story here…




‘Google Inside Your Head’: Brain Implants To Revolutionize AI For Humans

Part of the Transhuman dream is to achieve God-like omniscience, which is the goal with brain implants. Who would control the knowledge available to you? Google. Proceed at your own risk. ⁃ TN Editor
 

GOOGLE will be inside our heads as brain implants are developed to revolutionize AI for humans, according to an artificial intelligence expert.

Top AI expert Nikolas Kairinos believes within 20 years, implants put into human’s heads will allow us to not have to memorise a thing.

The CEO and Founder of Fountech.ai exclusively told Daily Star Online: “You won’t need to memorise anything.

Nick said humans, without making a sound or typing a single thing, will hear the answer to any question we may have inside our heads.

“Without making a sound or typing anything, you can ask something like ‘how you you say this in French?’ and instantly you’ll hear the information from the AI implant and be able to say it.”

Nick says the need to learn things in “parrot fashion” as we are taught in schools will disappear completely.

He revealed: “The need to actually learn something parrot fashion is going to disappear because we will have access to that instantly.

“Google will be in your head, and that’s not far-fetched.”

“It’ll be like having a really smart assistant that will almost think like you.”

Nick has more than 20 years’ experience of working with start ups and focuses on problem solving using artificial intelligence.

He revealed his thoughts on the future of AI to Daily Star Online and told us the massive changes he believes robots will have on our everyday lives.

Read full story here…

Northwestern Neuroscientist Researching Brain Chips To Make People Superintelligent

What if you could make money, or type something, just by thinking about it? It sounds like science fiction, but it might be close to reality.

In as little as five years, super smart people could be walking down the street; men and women who’ve paid to increase their intelligence.

Northwestern University neuroscientist and business professor Dr. Moran Cerf made that prediction, because he’s working on a smart chip for the brain.

“Make it so that it has an internet connection, and goes to Wikipedia, and when I think this particular thought, it gives me the answer,” he said.

Cerf is collaborating with Silicon Valley big wigs he’d rather not name.

Facebook also has been working on building a brain-computer interface, and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk is backing a brain-computer interface called Neuralink.

“Everyone is spending a lot of time right now trying to find ways to get things into the brain without drilling a hole in your skull,” Cerf said. “Can you eat something that will actually get to your brain? Can you eat things in parts that will assemble inside your head?”

It sounds mind-blowing. Relationships might be on the line.

“This is no longer a science problem. This is a social problem,” Cerf said.

Cerf worries about creating intelligence gaps in society; on top of existing gender, racial, and financial inequalities.

“They can make money by just thinking about the right investments, and we cannot; so they’re going to get richer, they’re going to get healthier, they’re going to live longer,” he said.

Read full story here…




Sick: Aborted Baby Parts Fused Into Mice For ‘Frankenstein’ Experiments

Technocracy views human life on the same level as animals, so Technocrat scientists see no ethical dilemma in using aborted baby parts in medical experiments with animals. Planned Parenthood remains in the middle of this controversy. ⁃ TN Editor

Aborted babies are being used in macabre experiments in the US that involve grafting dead fetus parts onto mice which are then used to test drugs.

Documents seen by Sun Online outline procedures that involve cutting out glands and livers of unborn children and then fusing them onto lab rodents.

The use of aborted baby body parts and stems cells has sparked anger among anti-abortion groups in the United States and it has been dubbed “Frankenstein” science.

And shocking undercover footage has led to the Donald Trump administration to reassess if the practice should be continued at all.

Clinics are supposed to ask if they would like to donate tissue but it is unclear whether the parents are aware their dead children’s bodies are being used in this way.

But what is known is that abortion clinics are supplying the fetal body parts, although they are not allowed to sell them.

Phelim McAleer, who has produced the film Gosnell, about a rogue abortionist, told Fox News: “Aborted babies bodies are a very valuable commodity in today’s America.

“Research institutions, elite universities, medical centers pay a lot of money for baby parts.”

Undercover footage in an abortion clinic run by Planned Parenthood shows dismembered aborted babies, with arms, legs and other parts.

They were being shown to pro-life activists from the Centre for Medical Progress who were posing as buyers.

The Sun Online has chosen not to show the graphic footage because it is too distressing.

Planned Parenthood has denied profiteering from the sale of body parts but it did say mums can give permission to donate their unborn fetus, which it said was common practice in such clinics.

Spokesperson Eric Ferrero said in a statement: “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does.”

US Government Backed Research

The controversial use of body parts is being spearheaded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is part of the American government which is ploughing $98million (£75m) of taxpayers’ money into using aborted babies in the name of science.




New U.S. Experiments Aim To Create Gene-Edited Human Embryos

Technocrat scientists at Columbia University are following China’s lead in editing human embryos with CRISPR technology. One lead scientists says, “Right now we are not trying to make babies”, indicating that they fully intend to make GMO babies later ⁃ TN Editor

A scientist in New York is conducting experiments designed to modify DNA in human embryos as a step toward someday preventing inherited diseases, NPR has learned.

For now, the work is confined to a laboratory. But the research, if successful, would mark another step toward turning CRISPR, a powerful form of gene editing, into a tool for medical treatment.

A Chinese scientist sparked international outrage in November when he announced that he had used the same technique to create the world’s first gene-edited human babies. He said his goal was to protect them from infection with HIV, a claim that was criticized because there are safe, effective and far less controversial ways of achieving that goal.

In contrast, Dieter Egli, a developmental biologist at Columbia University, says he is conducting his experiments “for research purposes.” He wants to determine whether CRISPR can safely repair mutations in human embryos to prevent genetic diseases from being passed down for generations.

So far, Egli has stopped any modified embryos from developing beyond one day so he can study them.

“Right now we are not trying to make babies. None of these cells will go into the womb of a person,” he says.

But if the approach is successful, Egli would likely allow edited embryos to develop further to continue his research.

Egli hopes doctors will someday be able edit embryonic human DNA to prevent many congenital illnesses, such as Tay-Sachs diseasecystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease.

In the lab, Egli is trying to fix one of the genetic defects that cause retinitis pigmentosa, an inherited form of blindness. If it works, the hope is that the approach could help blind people carrying the mutation have genetically related children whose vision is normal.

“Preventing inherited forms of blindness would be wonderful — very important for affected families,” Egli says.

But that is likely to take years of additional research to demonstrate that the technique is both effective and safe.

Nevertheless, even this kind of basic research is controversial.

“This is really disturbing,” says Fyodor Urnov, associate director of the Altius Institute for Biomedical Sciences in Seattle. He worries such experiments could encourage more irresponsible scientists to misuse gene-editing technologies.

“As we’ve learned from the events in China, it is no longer a hypothetical that somebody will just go ahead and go rogue and do something dangerous, reckless, unethical,” Urnov says.

Egli’s research is reviewed in advance and overseen by a panel of other scientists and bioethicists at Columbia.

While the debate over research like Egli’s continues, the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, the World Health Organization and others are trying to develop detailed standards for how scientists should safely and ethically edit human embryos.

Some bioethicists and scientists are calling for an explicit global moratorium on creating any more gene-edited babies. Others, like Urnov, would like to see a hiatus in even basic research.

The U.S. government prohibits the use of federal funding for research involving human embryos. But gene editing of human embryos can be done using private funding. The Food and Drug Administration is barred from considering any studies that would involve using genetically modified human embryos to create a pregnancy. But laws that govern the creation of genetically modified babies vary widely internationally.

Egli is well aware that his work may be controversial to some people. To try to be completely transparent about his experiments, Egli recently invited NPR to his laboratory for an exclusive look at his research.

“We can’t just do the editing and then hope everything goes right and implant that into a womb. That’s not responsible,” Egli says. “We have to first do the basic research studies to see what happens. That’s what we’re doing here.”

To show NPR what he is doing, early one morning Egli pushes open the door of a tiny windowless room on the sixth floor of one of Columbia’s research towers in Upper Manhattan. The lab is jammed with scientific equipment, including two microscopes.

Egli snaps on blue rubber gloves and opens a frosty metal cylinder holding frozen human eggs.

“I’m going to wear gloves because we want to keep things clean,” he tells me.

To begin his experiment, Egli starts the long, slow process of thawing the frozen human eggs that were donated for research. After several hours of careful work and waiting, Egli has readied 15 eggs for his experiment.

After setting up a large microscope, Egli slides a round glass dish under the lens. The dish contains sperm from a blind man who carries the mutation that Egli is trying to fix. It also holds the CRISPR gene-editing tool.

“I’m starting with just one egg,” he says as he gently places the first thawed egg into the dish.

“It’s a beautiful cell,” Egli says, pointing to a magnified image of the egg on a computer monitor. “I would say it’s one of the most beautiful cells.”

Egli maneuvers a tiny glass needle protruding into the side of the microscope dish toward one of the sperm. “So you can see a moving sperm over here,” he says. “Now I’m picking it up. The sperm is in the needle. Now I’m dipping it in the CRISPR tool.”

Once the sperm is inside the needle with the CRISPR gene-editing tool, Egli points the needle’s tip at the egg. “Oh no!” he exclaims with a sigh. “The sperm is swimming away.”

He searches the dish for the errant sperm.

“Oh, here it is,” he says as he pulls the sperm back into the needle.

Next, Egli gently pierces the egg with the needle. “The membrane is broken — breached. There we go,” Egli says as he injects the sperm and CRISPR tool into the egg. He breathes a sigh of relief.

Read full story here…




Parents Take Warning: A Generation Of Child Web Addicts

The natural  human inclination toward addiction is bad enough, but YouTube’s algorithms purposely lead youth to inappropriate and disturbing material that should not be impressed on young minds. If you have children or grandchildren, this is a must-read article. ⁃ TN Editor

Children have become such screen addicts they are abandoning their friends and hobbies, a major report warns today.

Researchers found under-fives spend an hour and 16 minutes a day online. Their screen time rises to four hours and 16 minutes when gaming and television are included.

Youngsters aged 12 to 15 average nearly three hours a day on the web – plus two more hours watching TV. The study said YouTube was ‘a near permanent feature’ of many young lives, and seven in ten of those aged 12 to 15 took smartphones to bed.

It concluded: ‘Children were watching people on YouTube pursuing hobbies that they did not do themselves or had recently given up offline.’

A growing number of parents admitted to researchers that they had lost control of their children’s online habits.

Campaigners described the report from media watchdog Ofcom as frightening.

‘In the early years, children need interaction with other people, and play – it is key to their social skills,’ said Sue Palmer of the group Toxic Childhood.

‘If that doesn’t happen when they are small, I don’t know where it leads. There is the screen time itself, and then there is what the screen time is displacing.’

The annual report, which was based on 2,000 interviews, also revealed that:

  • Children aged five to 15 spend 20 minutes more online a day than watching TV;
  • One in five pre-schoolers and two fifths of five- to eight-year-olds have an iPad or tablet device;
  • A fifth of children aged eight to 12 are on social media – despite a supposed ban on under-13s;
  • Nearly one in five children aged 12 to 16 have accidentally spent money online.

Children aged three and four still watch more television than online videos, but their TV consumption is shrinking whilst their time online is rocketing.

Many flock to YouTube and spend hours watching child-friendly videos such as how to make slime or draw animals. Others seek out ‘unboxing’ videos in which YouTube stars unwrap new products.

Some youngsters are becoming so obsessed with YouTube celebrities that they idolise them as role models, the Ofcom report said.

Some upload videos of their own, hoping to make a career for themselves. Disturbingly, many watch the lifestyle ‘vloggers’ pursuing hobbies and interacting with friends instead of doing so themselves.

Read full story here…




Chickens Genetically Modified To Lay Eggs Containing Cancer Drugs

Monsanto delivers pesticides in corn seed and not GMO chickens will deliver cancer drugs through their eggs. The problem? The DNA germline is permanently changed and can never be restored to its original state. Secondly, there is no testing possible to see what affect it will have on humans. ⁃ TN Editor

Scientists have genetically modified chickens to lay eggs containing high quality cancer drugs, in the latest breakthrough.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute believe the technique could offer a cost-effective way of producing drugs in the near future.

The chickens were genetically modified to produce drugs in their eggs, and amazingly, the researchers found that the drugs worked just as well as ones produced using existing methods.

Amazingly, just three eggs were enough to produce an adequate dosage, with hens able to lay up to 300 eggs a year.

Professor Helen Sang said: “We are not yet producing medicines for people, but this study shows that chickens are commercially viable for producing proteins suitable for drug discovery studies and other applications in biotechnology.”

Eggs are already used for growing viruses used as vaccines, such as in the flu jab.

But in this case the chicken’s DNA was encoded with proteins produced as part of the egg white – a human protein called IFNalpha2a, which has powerful anti-viral and anti-cancer effects, and the human and pig versions of a protein called macrophage-CSF.

Read full story here…




Scientists Working On A Pill To Cure Loneliness

Technocrat scientists have a scientific answer for every problem known to man and his universe, and yet every solution creates other unintended problems. The answer? More science. ⁃ TN Editor
 

Modern life has led to greater isolation, which can fuel an array of disorders. If there are medications for social pains like depression and anxiety, why not loneliness?

oneliness is part of the human condition. A primeval warning sign, like hunger or thirst, to seek out a primary resource: connection. Millions of years of evolution have shaped us into creatures who need social bonds in the same way that we need food and water.

And yet we increasingly find ourselves isolated. Loneliness is no longer a powerful enough driver to break us out of the silos created by modern life. Like our insatiable love of high-calorie foods, what was once an adaptive tool has become so misaligned with the way we live that it’s causing, in the words of the former surgeon general Vivek H Murthy, an “epidemic”.

It’s hard to compare our collective loneliness against that of previous generations, as we simply haven’t been measuring it consistently, but recent estimates suggest that anywhere from 22% to 75% of American adults are persistently lonely. A number of culture-wide structural changes might be to blame: more Americans live alone than ever before; fewer of us are marrying or having children; our average household size is shrinking. In many cases, these changes represent the availability of options where once the only accepted path was marriage and a nuclear family. But they also mean we are spending more time on our own. “Western societies have demoted human gregariousness from a necessity to an incidental,” writes John Cacioppo, a neuroscientist who studied social pain and passed away in March 2018, in his book Loneliness.

The trouble is that chronic loneliness doesn’t just make you feel terrible – it’s also terrible for you. Loneliness elevates our risk of developing a range of disorders, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative diseases, cognitive decline, and metastatic cancer. It also weakens the immune system, making us more susceptible to infections. Left untended, even situational loneliness can ossify into a fixed state that changes brain structures and processes, says Stephanie Cacioppo, director of the Brain Dynamics Lab at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. She is also John Cacioppo’s widow and was his research partner up until his death last year.

As a scientist, Stephanie Cacioppo has often viewed her life as an experiment. When John died, the practical elements of their joint research took on an urgent personal relevance.

People sometimes compare social loss to physical pain, but Stephanie finds the analogy inaccurate. After John’s death, she went on long runs, pushing herself in near-freezing temperatures until her muscles and lungs screamed. “I could handle the pain because I knew it would have an end,” she says. “The physical pain associated with running was less intense than the deep, heartfelt emotional pain of the loss of the love of my life.”

Stephanie says she’s now relying on many of the social fitness exercises that the couple validated together, such as making an effort to express gratitude, doing something nice for someone else without expecting something in return, choosing to engage with strangers, and sharing good news with others. “I am living proof of my science,” she says. “I apply it every day.”

Unlike depression and anxiety, loneliness has no recognized clinical form; there is no available diagnosis or treatment for feeling chronically isolated.She has also found relief in her work and in continuing her husband’s legacy: “If you have a sense of worth and life with a purpose, you will feel less lonely,” Stephanie says. Today, that means continuing a body of research that she and her late husband were beginning to explore: a pill for loneliness.

Read full story here…

 




Monstrous: China Clones Monkeys, Edits Genes To Make Mentally Ill

Technocrats have no moral or ethical compass, nor concern about the future of mankind. These experiments on animals are just one step away from tinkering with the human genome, which has already been demonstrated by another Chinese scientist.  ⁃ TN Editor

China’s latest monkey cloning experiment has sparked outrage and been labeled “monstrous” by animals welfare advocates.

Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Neuroscience have cloned five monkey babies from a single donor with genes edited to cause diseases.

Read full story here…




How Will DNA Be Collected For Future Healthcare?

A fierce battle is raging between DNA Technocrats as to the best way to collect DNA from the population: should it be the professional medical community or consumer services like 23andMe? Either way, your data can and will be weaponized against you. ⁃ TN Editor

As millions of Americans sat down to Thanksgiving dinner, the biomedical researcher James Hazel sent out a stark warning about the genetic-testing kitsthat he surmised would be a hot topic of conversation.

Most of them are neither safe nor private.

Hazel reached this conclusion after reviewing the privacy policies and terms of service of nearly 100 genetic-testing companies that offer their services directly to people. Most people use these services either by submitting a sample of salivaor uploading their raw digital DNA signature to a public database. Their lofty common draw is enabling people to learn more about their health, family history, and ultimately their identity.

Hazel, a researcher at Vanderbilt University, studied companies ranging from popular startups like 23andMe — which offers health and ancestry information — to under-the-radar outfits such as GEDmatch, which simply houses genetic information to help people build family trees. His article, which was published on Thanksgiving Day in the journal Science, found that nearly half lacked even a basic privacy document that governed genetic data.

Privacy isn’t the only concern that experts have with consumer genetic tests. In addition to collecting sensitive data on ancestry, companies like 23andMe claim to show how your DNA affects your health. But clinicians, medical professors, and genetic counselors told Business Insider that this information is misleading and could put people at risk of missing warning signs for diseases like cancer.

“It’s very scary for us because patients think they’ve had a genetic test when they haven’t,” said Theodora Ross, the director of the cancer-genetics program at the University of Texas Southwestern.

Still, comprehensive genetic workups — the kind that require a doctor’s visit — remain expensive and time-consuming.

That’s led millions of Americans to rely on at-home kits for most of their genetic knowledge. This holiday season, genetic-testing kits broke sales records. Ancestry announced after Thanksgiving that it had sold 14 million DNA kits worldwide. 23andMe has assembled genetic data on more than 5 million customers.

Experts agree it’s time for a different model, something between a pricey doctor-ordered test and the limited spit kits available in drug stores. And though several companies are trying new approaches, none has emerged as a leader. In the meantime, sensitive customer data is being uploaded and housed in large databases — sometimes forever.

For law-enforcement officials to arrest suspected Golden State Killer Joseph DeAngelo on charges including four murders and dozens of rapes, they did not need him to participate in any genetic-testing services.

Instead, DeAngelo’s arrest hinged on the participation of several of his distant family members. At some point, 24 people distantly related to him uploaded their genetic data to a public DNA database called GEDmatch.

After creating a fake GEDmatch profile using DNA they’d gathered at the scene of a 1980 crime, investigators were led to those people. By cross-checking the list against several other databases such as census data and cemetery records, they were able to close in on DeAngelo.

That’s something Hazel and other researchers call “reidentification.” He said it’s a significant risk for people, even if they haven’t ever personally taken a genetic test.

“The fact that law enforcement has access to this with just a subpoena, that was the impetus for my article,” Hazel said. “I wanted to use it to highlight the deficiencies of the system.”

Still, the process required a specialist and years of work, Curtis Rogers, the cofounder of GEDmatch, told Business Insider.

“It takes many people, each supplying little bits of information, to begin the complicated process of solving a cold case,” Rogers said.

‘Informed consent’ is not always informed

Most genetic-testing companies say they use something called “informed consent” to verify that people understand what their genetic data may be used for. Most well-established companies like Ancestry or 23andMe ask for consent when a customer signs up or registers their kit; others put it in a 10- or 20-page terms-of-service document.

Informed consent is especially important because some companies keep genetic data for a long time, sometimes indefinitely. That means it can be used in different ways, including for purposes like solving a murder, that customers might not have anticipated.

Read full story here…